[Theoretical] A new, magic type of steroid

[Rayne]

Steroids have been in the news even more so than usual the past couple of weeks, for those of you who have been living in a cave. Lance Armstrong was finally busted, and Victor Conte (head of the infamous BALCO lab) has come out stating that he believes half of professional MMA fighters are juicing.

The gut reaction many people have is "steroids are wrong", which is usually derived from the following reasoning: Steroids are bad because they cause harm to your body; professional athletes should not use steroids because they are (willing or not) role models for young athletes, who may be tempted to use steroids in order to be competitive.

So let's take this purely theoretical example. A magic steroid is created which leaves no temporary or permanent harm with the user. It improves muscle mass, endurance, recovery ability, and hell, why not, it also gives you amazing orgasms. (I said this is theoretical.) With the harm argument removed, is there still a reason to be opposed to the use of performance-enhancing chemicals?

 

[Tastycles]

Isn't what you described creatine? Creatine increases muscle mass, and it's whole purpose is as an aid to recovery and stamina for short term pursuits. Like most steroid and hormonal drugs it occurs naturally in the body, but unlike them it is pretty much harmless if administered externally. For that reason, it's not banned, and the vast majority of sprinters and other quick burst athletes take creatine supplements. The reason steroids are banned is because they're dangerous, not because they offer a performance boost.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Steroids have been in the news even more so than usual the past couple of weeks, for those of you who have been living in a cave.

I'm reporting you for flaming cave people. They don't deserve to this level of disdain.

Lance Armstrong was finally busted, and Victor Conte (head of the infamous BALCO lab) has come out stating that he believes half of professional MMA fighters are juicing.

The gut reaction many people have is "steroids are wrong", which is usually derived from the following reasoning: Steroids are bad because they cause harm to your body; professional athletes should not use steroids because they are (willing or not) role models for young athletes, who may be tempted to use steroids in order to be competitive.

So let's take this purely theoretical example. A magic steroid is created which leaves no temporary or permanent harm with the user. It improves muscle mass, endurance, recovery ability, and hell, why not, it also gives you amazing orgasms. (I said this is theoretical.) With the harm argument removed, is there still a reason to be opposed to the use of performance-enhancing chemicals?

As long as it doesn't damage your brain, impair your ability to operate heavy machinery, or change your offspring's genetic make up I say do what you want. Kobe is getting German shit done to his knee that is crazy unnatural, they let a guy with no legs run a race in the Olympics, and I'm pretty sure Roger Goodell conveniently loses some test results each year.

Either way there is no way you will catch me watching competitive cycling.